Skip to main content
Open

Enable attributes-only reading from FGDBs/shapefiles

Related products:Integrations
  • September 15, 2025
  • 4 replies
  • 70 views

p_c_20
Supporter

Often, I’m dealing with large amounts of spatial features, but only need the non-geometry attributes. Reading in a national dataset of small polygons must add a lot of time to the process. Reading it all in and then removing geometry is a small saving, but not much. Could we have a ‘no geoms’ option in Feature Reader/Reader? 

4 replies

PierreAtSafe
Safer
Forum|alt.badge.img+8
  • Safer
  • 107 replies
  • September 15, 2025
NewOpen

bruceharold
Supporter
Forum|alt.badge.img+19
  • Supporter
  • 353 replies
  • November 13, 2025

For file geodatabase feature classes, you can create a view in the geodatabase, if you do not include the Shape column then the view will be a table without geometry.  This has the benefit of being always synchronized with the source feature class and requiring (almost) no storage.


PierreAtSafe
Safer
Forum|alt.badge.img+8
  • Safer
  • 107 replies
  • November 19, 2025


Hi @p_c_20,

I was advised the following for Shapefiles: reading only the .dbf file will only read attributes. To do this in FME, use the DBase Reader (.dbf) or drag & drop the .dbf file on the canvas. Since this file only contains the attributes, no geometry processing will happen. There may be some slight differences with schema types.

This coupled with Bruce’s advice should solve your problem I believe. Let me know if that’s not the case please.

I’ll close this idea once you can confirm that the suggestions above are working.

Cheers


p_c_20
Supporter
Forum|alt.badge.img+9
  • Author
  • Supporter
  • 36 replies
  • November 20, 2025


Hi @p_c_20,

I was advised the following for Shapefiles: reading only the .dbf file will only read attributes. To do this in FME, use the DBase Reader (.dbf) or drag & drop the .dbf file on the canvas. Since this file only contains the attributes, no geometry processing will happen. There may be some slight differences with schema types.

This coupled with Bruce’s advice should solve your problem I believe. Let me know if that’s not the case please.

I’ll close this idea once you can confirm that the suggestions above are working.

Cheers

Good idea. However, I am working entirely outside ArcGIS. I imagine I would need to go into that to create a view. It still feels to me like a modification to FME that has merit and saves time. 

Appreciate the suggestions!